'Cause that’s what’s being complained about in this thread.
My point exactly…so why would shutting CH down embolden them? They’d have to start doing their own propaganda.
HA ha, sorry, I couldn’t help myself, my little joke. Like the West is going to stop being racist anytime soon. Ha! I kill me!
We’re debating. I’m not telling you to shut up and you have no reason to fear for your safety from me in expressing your critical opinions.
Aah, so we’re not playing games, and what we post actually means what we say?
Good that you’ve come around to this way of thinking.
So, about that “prioritize”…
You kind of were.
I’ve engaged here to take my mind off the election. But I’m finding the pedantry tiresome. I’m going to make a cup of tea and do something else for a while.
So your point is essentially “I agree that violence against people for drawing a cartoon is wrong. However Charlie Hebdo is racist and therefore doesn’t deserve your support.”
In other words, you’re making the same argument my mom makes every time a BLM protest breaks out: “It’s wrong for cops to kill anyone, but the black community shouldn’t lionize a criminal!”.
That’s BS when Cadence Owens says it, when my mom says it, or when you say it. It’s especially BS when every single time someone is murdered for being black or for making cartoons about Muslims you trot out that same argument.
Whereas I’ve engaged here because I think Charlie Hebdo’s racist cartoons shouldn’t get a pass just because some of its targets happen to be killers.
“Whereas I’ve engaged here because I think George Floyd’s criminal conduct shouldn’t get a pass just because some he happened to be murdered by a cop”
Yep, just like my mom’s argument.
Yes. A stance I was already happy to take as soon as I was aware of the publication and its output. Years before anyone there was killed.
Just so it’s clear - I’m saying that there’s nothing linking my attitude to CH, and the fact that they were victims of violence. They could never have been attacked, and I still would want their racist filth banned.
In your words, that you’re happily going to put in my mouth, I’m sure…
Sure, it’s exactly like that 
Well, except for the “but”, which is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. And how the racist side somehow jumped the fence there.
But yeah - “racist cartoons shouldn’t be published”, the new “black community shouldn’t lionize a criminal”, who knew?
It gets more stupid an analogy the more you make it - you do realise you’re now saying “racists should get a pass on their racism if they’re the victims of violence”, right?
I’m sure Liam Neeson can identify with that feel, bro.
They don’t get a ‘pass’ on anything. You are free to call them out for their racism, if you believe they are racist. You are free to refuse to purchase their product and you are free to encourage other people to not purchase their product. If you convince enough people not to buy their product that they go out of business, mission accomplished, I guess. But you don’t get to just arbitrarily shut them down.
And I have no idea what Liam Neeson has to do with anything, but OK
If they’re allowed to spew their racist filth, they’re getting a pass. They don’t give a shit about their good reputation. Trolls never do.
And is “arbitrarily” a word that’s going to need walking back, like Quicksilver’s “prioritize”? I wouldn’t be shutting them down “arbitrarily”, I’ll be shutting them down because
a) I would have the right to, in this hypothetical. I’m not advocating some kind of mob shut-down.
b) it would be for good reasons, not randomly.
He’s someone who thought being a victim of violence (actually, just the boyfriend of a victim) somehow excused and even justified his racism.
No, because “Because MrDibble said it was racist” is not a good enough reason to ban speech.
Cool story? I’m not sure what that added to the conversation but OK.
You realize that with actual freedom of speech there is nothing illegal about racist, sexist, etc. expressions?
It’s the best reason.
It was just a throwaway line riffing off you thinking victimhood excuses racism, buddy. Your ignorance of how common racist behaviours are in society is what dragged it into a 3-post extravaganza.
“Freedom of speech” doesn’t exist. Just differences in what’s prohibited. And your version of it sucks. Racist and sexist speech should be illegal. I’m happy I live in a place where the former already is. It’s improved my country.
Actually, it shouldn’t be illegal. I’m not sure what you fear from the random cartoonists compared to the state or state sanctioned mobs. Furthermore, religious ideas or practices should never be beyond critique.
If it’s not screamingly obvious, it’s because the first historically leads to the other.
I wasn’t bringing up Der Giftpilz for shits and giggles, before. It’s a stark lesson in where racist speech leads.
I honestly can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic because you think you’re above having to offer any explanation for what you say, or if you honestly believe this is a good reason. Either way, it’s not a good look.
I’m familiar with Liam Neeson going on TV to apologize for roaming the streets looking for a black man to fight to the death. I just don’t see why you think that has anything to do with our discussion.
Ok, let’s concede that you are correct. How do you establish that something is racist, sexist, blasphemous, anti trans or whatever? Furthermore, who makes that determination and based on what objective criteria?